Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
You're thinking is just as linear but less logical than mine.

No offense, but all of your posts have been void of logic.

You claim consciousness doesn't exist but on the same breath admit that conscious beings exist. How is it you have trouble understanding that the
word consciousness is just a simple name for the totality of all physical and nonphysical systems and things which give rise to the conscious part of
a conscious being?

Do you want me to point to the conscious parts of a conscious being (consciousness)? So be it...

It is a common misconception that the brain alone is responsible for the conscious parts of a conscious being (consciousness). If I ask you to point
to the exact part of the brain that facilitates consciousness, you can't, because no one single part of it contains consciousness. It is the
totality of all parts of the brain as a system that support consciousness.

However, the brain requires an entire circulatory system to operate. Without the oxygenated blood running through the system, your brain would cease
to function, and there would be no consciousness. So your circulatory system helps support consciousness.

However, the circulatory system requires your heart, and lungs, and other vital organs to operate. Your body also requires a nervous system so your
brain can control your heart and lungs and muscles to operate the circulatory system. So your vital organs also support consciousness.

However, your brain, heart, lungs, vital organs, and systems would cease to exist if it wasn't for your digestive system which provides nutrients to
said body parts. So that too supports consciousness.

However... How could you ever truly become conscious without some type of initial senses? You need to at least have 1 of the 5 senses at birth to
experience any type of consciousness or awareness or you will never experience anything at all. So you must have eyes, or a nose, or ears, or a
tongue, and or skin to feel with to support consciousness. Sure you may be able to remove all your senses after already obtaining consciousness and
still keep your consciousness, but you can't obtain consciousness without some initial senses at birth. So, it is safe to say, your entire body as a
whole supports consciousness.

However....... How could my entire body exist at all without an environment? How could my heart and lungs operate my circulatory system and operate
my brain without the air around me? Without the air around me on Earth, my heart and lungs will be useless, and my brain would cease to operate, and
I would not be conscious. And, how would my digestive system operate without the nutrients from food and water from my environment? How could any of
my vital organs exist without the Earth, the plants, and trees, and soil, and water? You see, the Earth is just as much a vital organ as my brain, my
heart, my lungs, and all my systems. Without the Earth, I would cease to exist, and I would not be conscious, just as I would cease to exist without
a heart, lungs, and other organs... The Earth is a part of my body, and it too supports the existence of consciousness. I could also point to the
Earth as well as my entire body when someone asks to point to consciousness.

However.......... How can the Earth exist without the Sun, Moon, Universe, and all the forces within?? How can my body exist without all of the
above?? It cant. So the entire Universe as a whole is responsible for consciousness.

You are a part of the Universe. You are conscious. The Universe is conscious.

If I were to point to consciousness, I would point to the entire Universe.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
You're thinking is just as linear but less logical than mine.

No offense, but all of your posts have been void of logic.

You claim consciousness doesn't exist but on the same breath admit that conscious beings exist. How is it you have trouble understanding that the
word consciousness is just a simple name for the totality of all physical and nonphysical systems and things which give rise to the conscious part of
a conscious being?

Do you want me to point to the conscious parts of a conscious being (consciousness)? So be it...

It is a common misconception that the brain alone is responsible for the conscious parts of a conscious being (consciousness). If I ask you to point
to the exact part of the brain that facilitates consciousness, you can't, because no one single part of it contains consciousness. It is the
totality of all parts of the brain as a system that support consciousness.

However, the brain requires an entire circulatory system to operate. Without the oxygenated blood running through the system, your brain would cease
to function, and there would be no consciousness. So your circulatory system helps support consciousness.

However, the circulatory system requires your heart, and lungs, and other vital organs to operate. Your body also requires a nervous system so your
brain can control your heart and lungs and muscles to operate the circulatory system. So your vital organs also support consciousness.

However, your brain, heart, lungs, vital organs, and systems would cease to exist if it wasn't for your digestive system which provides nutrients to
said body parts. So that too supports consciousness.

However... How could you ever truly become conscious without some type of initial senses? You need to at least have 1 of the 5 senses at birth to
experience any type of consciousness or awareness or you will never experience anything at all. So you must have eyes, or a nose, or ears, or a
tongue, and or skin to feel with to support consciousness. Sure you may be able to remove all your senses after already obtaining consciousness and
still keep your consciousness, but you can't obtain consciousness without some initial senses at birth. So, it is safe to say, your entire body as a
whole supports consciousness.

However....... How could my entire body exist at all without an environment? How could my heart and lungs operate my circulatory system and operate
my brain without the air around me? Without the air around me on Earth, my heart and lungs will be useless, and my brain would cease to operate, and
I would not be conscious. And, how would my digestive system operate without the nutrients from food and water from my environment? How could any of
my vital organs exist without the Earth, the plants, and trees, and soil, and water? You see, the Earth is just as much a vital organ as my brain, my
heart, my lungs, and all my systems. Without the Earth, I would cease to exist, and I would not be conscious, just as I would cease to exist without
a heart, lungs, and other organs... The Earth is a part of my body, and it too supports the existence of consciousness. I could also point to the
Earth as well as my entire body when someone asks to point to consciousness.

However.......... How can the Earth exist without the Sun, Moon, Universe, and all the forces within?? How can my body exist without all of the
above?? It cant. So the entire Universe as a whole is responsible for consciousness.

You are a part of the Universe. You are conscious. The Universe is conscious.

If I were to point to consciousness, I would point to the entire Universe.

But, I don't expect you to understand or agree.

No, I made it clear it existed as a word, but nothing more. Your whole entire post only helps to clarify what I've been arguing since the very
beginning: "We exist, therefore we are conscious"

You added: "Universe as a whole is responsible for consciousness"

We are both saying the universe allows for conscious things. If the universe is consciousness, then the word 'consciousness' is unnecessary as the
word 'universe' is already good enough as a term. We know the universe exists. We know that conscious beings exist in the universe. Therefore, it
shouldn't be "I think; therefore I am." But "I am; therefore I think."

When I ask someone to show me ‘blueness,’ he could only ever point to things that are blue, not ‘blueness’ itself. When I ask someone to show
me consciousness, he can only ever show me things that are conscious, not consciousness itself. If I ask the same of ‘awareness’ or
‘wakefulness’ I would only be shown things that are aware or wakeful. These abstract nouns only represent nonentities.

Exploring the posibilites of abstract nouns and things completely void of any subject or context leads to such strange paradoxical conclusions such as
“Consciousness is conscious of itself.” This is the same as saying “Happiness is happy with itself” or “blueness is as blue as itself.”
These of course make little to no logical sense.

It seems that you are saying the idea of consciousness is invalid because it is abstract, yet you are simultaneously arguing that we should embrace
logic, which is also abstract. Though that would be a handy koan to use during meditation, it is generally impractical to contradict yourself in an
argument.

In your example of "blueness" you say that we can only provide ostensive definitions (examples) of "blueness," and since we cannot point to
blueness itself, it's not real. However if this is the criteria for the "reality" of nouns, or language in general, we really have to say that
language itself is bogus. Language is an abstraction -- there is nothing inherently concrete about it.

Like it or not, we are linguistic beings, which means that our entire world is framed by abstract concepts that allow us to make sense of our
experiences. If you can escape from abstractions and re-enter raw reality, you are likely to become either "enlightened" or psychotic.

If you would like to go deeper into the rabbit hole of language, I recommend reading Jaques Lacan -- DISCLAIMER: a few of his patients
committed suicide... but there is a saying, "the psychotic drowns where the mystic swims."

Here is the first video of a series with Zizek talking about the Lacanian concepts of real, symbolic and imaginary. His speech takes time to get used
to, but he breaks it down fairly well.

You're right I am indeed doing that. I think the idea of consciousness is invalid.

I am also aware the limitations of language, but I would argue that it is all we have when describing, defining and conveying ideas. Logic is all we
have to survey this mess of language. Language and logic are not answers, but tools to gain some sort of understanding. This is what I'm attempting.
There's no dogma here whatsoever. Just a minor survey and critique of some of the language that is getting in the way of understanding what is really
there.

every time we breathe or our heart beats.Every thought we make every move we make.A synapce fire energy in our brains.Sending signals to our body.Just
as radio waves or electrical feilds spread out ,So does the energys in our brains spread out in every direction at the speed of light...simples..

I honestly don't think there is anything anyone could say to you to make you understand the confusion you seem to be experiencing right now, or to
get you to see the flaw in your logic(?).

I will say one last thing in this topic. Hopefully it will be the conditional statement that escapes the never ending loop you are stuck in.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
We know the universe exists. We know that conscious beings exist in the universe.

We know the universe exists. We know that consciousness exists in the universe.

The above sentence has the exact same meaning as your above quote.

I understand what you're trying to get at. That consciousness is many things comprising the state a conscious being is in. I agree with this. But
this shows that the word doesn't represent one thing, but many things, feelings and appearances of states.

The above statements are not the same. We know that conscious beings exist in the universe; we can touch them, see them, and perceive them. We can see
and perceive that they are conscious. Yet we cannot find anything called "consciousness" playing any factor. Show me consciousness, you can only
show me conscious beings. The beings exist, but the idea of consciousness only exists in the realm of our ideas, classifications, categories and
language, but no where in the universe. Consciousness is an idea and a word meant to classify the appearance or state of a conscious being, not an
actual substance or thing.

The massive number of slow bundled packets of energy (light), all of which are changing constantly... result in experiencing the sensation of being
"repelled". But nothing ever touches anything else... it's all empty space and almost infinitely small amounts of energy. And they aren't ever the
same bundles of energy, only a relatively (but not entirely) consistent pattern.

You never touch a being. You can't touch a being. The being is just a momentary arrangement of energy, which also can't be touched... only
experienced.

And we don't know what energy "is", it's a label to describe something we experience, something that is capable of providing visual phenomena, but
usually not. Every "thing" is just a different version of primarily invisible intangible energies in different patterns. Most of which can only be
detected by their effects on "other things".

You can't touch anything, you can only experience the sensation. You can't touch consciousness, you can only experience the sensation.

Touching a "thing" is an illusion. Show me the "thing" that causes the like ends of a magnet to push against each other, or opposite ends to attract.
Not the effects on "other things" that can be observed, but the *actual* magnetism. Yet if it didn't "exist" it couldn't have an effect. Two like
poles trying to be pushed together is the same thing that happens when you "touch" something. Two magnets that you can't push any closer together but
are still physically a foot apart are "touching", but aren't actually "touching".

A chair is not fundamentally different from a magnet, it's just a different manifestation of the same fundamental basic energy. Energy which is an
abstract label to describe something that we don't know what it is, or even can prove it exists beyond the effects.

When you load a video game, the "chairs" don't exist... only the energetic patterns that allow a visual manifestation that we would call chair to
materialize. A being in the game can collide with it, sit in etc... but it never existed, and the collision is entirely an illusion of energy patterns
to give the sensation/experience of a physical reality.

You also don't *see* a being. You perceive the experience of light in a certain pattern which is then interpreted into a structure. But it is
evidenced by the fact that two people can look at the same thing and see them differently shows that what you "see" isn't what "is".

You see the *effects* of "beings", not the beings themselves. You see the effects of consciousness, not consciousness itself. We see the effects of
gravity, but not gravity itself.

You see (feel/experience) light, and even then you aren't seeing the light, you are visualizing the ephemeral pattern. You don't hear beings, you
feel/experience vibrations.

Were this not true, it would be impossible for optical illusions to exist because you would see the thing as it truly is, not as your consciousness
interpreted the patterns it was given.

The same physical brain, but an altered state of consciousness (not referring to introduction of outside chemicals) can result in literally seeing
physical reality differently. Which reality is correct? Which version of the "seen" and "touched" thing is correct? We know it can't be the majority,
because if the majority were color blind that wouldn't make that the "truth" of existence.

The wavelengths of light are still there doing their thing regardless of our ability to point to them or previously being unable to measure them.

If an object exists in 4D, it would be able to influence our region of space without being visible in the same way a 3D object radiating heat could
cause an area in Flatland to heat up by hovering "1 unit above", and would be completely impossible to point to or verify except by measuring the
effects and using language to describe what to a Flatlander would be an "abstract" concept, but to a Spacelander would be basic reality that "any
child can see" and is common sense.

It is absolutely not Common Sense to the Flatlander, but is undeniable Common Sense to the Spacelander. Which vantage is going to be the better
informed? Just because the Flatlander can't point to it, should it reject it just because the only means of discussing it require abstract concepts?
Would that be an intelligent approach?

Consciousness exists because things are conscious, insomuch as blueness exists because things are blue. Nobody's trying to say conciosness is a
tangible thing you can hold onto. You are forgetting that nouns arent just people or places or things, they are also abstract ideas. When referring to
conciousness you are simply referring to to the idea of something being concious. But I have a feeling you know this already and are just being
pedantic. There's no point trying to fight over this really.

Originally posted by Akasirus
But I have a feeling you know this already and are just being pedantic. There's no point trying to fight over this really.

Or there is more going on in the discussion between the people actually having it than you are picking up on.

Am I to conclude that there is any point to entering a civil discussion exploring the foundations of each other's assumptions about the nature of
reality and language... that you aren't interested in engaging in... to tell people there is no point for them to have their own discussion?

consciousness is the only thing that exists.. Everything is an epiphenomena of it

What do you base this off of? What is the line of reasoning used to reach this conclusion?

I experience it directly... I feel it. I sense it. Everything you are talking about is a construction of reality it is based on language and is not a
direct experience. It is not a true reality. What I sense within myself is.

I just posted a reply in another thread based on Gödels theory of incompleteness that I'll strip down and present here because it is very
relevant.

The gist of Gödels theory.

All closed systems depend on something outside the system. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a car but the car cannot explain itself. it's existance relies on a factory outside of the circle.

What if we draw a circle around the entire physical universe? The universe cannot explan itself. It's existance relies on something outside the
circle; outside matter, outside energy, outside time. Applying Gödels theorem we know that what is outside the circle is not matter, energy or time.
It is immaterial.

Prescriptive information symbolised by codes is also immaterial, since all codes stem from consciousness, outside the circle of material things like
letters, numbers etc... Must be... according to Gödels theory, consiousness.

Draw a circle around the biomechanical parts of the human organism, it's physicality cannot explain why it should think, feel, self reflect etc..
This is the HARD problem of nueroscience for a very good reason. These things exist outside the circle of the material parts.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.

Staring into the infinite did drive him to madness in the end, perhaps it was too much for his logical mind to fully accept.

The massive number of slow bundled packets of energy (light), all of which are changing constantly... result in experiencing the sensation of being
"repelled". But nothing ever touches anything else... it's all empty space and almost infinitely small amounts of energy. And they aren't ever the
same bundles of energy, only a relatively (but not entirely) consistent pattern.

You never touch a being. You can't touch a being. The being is just a momentary arrangement of energy, which also can't be touched... only
experienced.

And we don't know what energy "is", it's a label to describe something we experience, something that is capable of providing visual phenomena, but
usually not. Every "thing" is just a different version of primarily invisible intangible energies in different patterns. Most of which can only be
detected by their effects on "other things".

You can't touch anything, you can only experience the sensation. You can't touch consciousness, you can only experience the sensation.

Touching a "thing" is an illusion. Show me the "thing" that causes the like ends of a magnet to push against each other, or opposite ends to attract.
Not the effects on "other things" that can be observed, but the *actual* magnetism. Yet if it didn't "exist" it couldn't have an effect. Two like
poles trying to be pushed together is the same thing that happens when you "touch" something. Two magnets that you can't push any closer together but
are still physically a foot apart are "touching", but aren't actually "touching".

A chair is not fundamentally different from a magnet, it's just a different manifestation of the same fundamental basic energy. Energy which is an
abstract label to describe something that we don't know what it is, or even can prove it exists beyond the effects.

When you load a video game, the "chairs" don't exist... only the energetic patterns that allow a visual manifestation that we would call chair to
materialize. A being in the game can collide with it, sit in etc... but it never existed, and the collision is entirely an illusion of energy patterns
to give the sensation/experience of a physical reality.

Namaste.

edit on 2012/7/17 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Yes you can. Reach your arm out, place your finger on something. That is touching something. Both the finger, the skin, the muscle, the nerves, the
blood, the bones, the heart, the lungs and the brain, including your imagination all play a part in touching that thing and perceiving that thing,
whether it is a chair or a magnet. "Consciousness," or the state a conscious being is in, cannot touch anything.

You also don't *see* a being. You perceive the experience of light in a certain pattern which is then interpreted into a structure. But it is
evidenced by the fact that two people can look at the same thing and see them differently shows that what you "see" isn't what "is".

You see the *effects* of "beings", not the beings themselves. You see the effects of consciousness, not consciousness itself. We see the effects of
gravity, but not gravity itself.

You see (feel/experience) light, and even then you aren't seeing the light, you are visualizing the ephemeral pattern. You don't hear beings, you
feel/experience vibrations.

Were this not true, it would be impossible for optical illusions to exist because you would see the thing as it truly is, not as your consciousness
interpreted the patterns it was given.

The same physical brain, but an altered state of consciousness (not referring to introduction of outside chemicals) can result in literally seeing
physical reality differently. Which reality is correct? Which version of the "seen" and "touched" thing is correct? We know it can't be the
majority, because if the majority were color blind that wouldn't make that the "truth" of existence.

The wavelengths of light are still there doing their thing regardless of our ability to point to them or previously being unable to measure them.

If an object exists in 4D, it would be able to influence our region of space without being visible in the same way a 3D object radiating heat could
cause an area in Flatland to heat up by hovering "1 unit above", and would be completely impossible to point to or verify except by measuring the
effects and using language to describe what to a Flatlander would be an "abstract" concept, but to a Spacelander would be basic reality that "any
child can see" and is common sense.

It is absolutely not Common Sense to the Flatlander, but is undeniable Common Sense to the Spacelander. Which vantage is going to be the better
informed? Just because the Flatlander can't point to it, should it reject it just because the only means of discussing it require abstract concepts?
Would that be an intelligent approach?

Namaste.

edit on 2012/7/17 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Yes you do. Consciousness, or the state a conscious being is in, cannot see a being, but the eyes, the cortex, the blood pumping to those eyes, the
imagination, the memory, the nerves, the vantage point, light, the optical nerve, the retina etc. all play a part in letting one see. The conscious
being sees, not the fact that he's full of something called consciousness. Whether you see thoughts in your head, in your dreams or with your eyes,
seeing involves the body, and not something called consciousness.

Consciousness is the conscious body. That's what everyone is wrongfully calling consciousness. Because without it, there would be no consciousness.
Maybe we can lay credit where the credit is due?

consciousness is the only thing that exists.. Everything is an epiphenomena of it

What do you base this off of? What is the line of reasoning used to reach this conclusion?

I experience it directly... I feel it. I sense it. Everything you are talking about is a construction of reality it is based on language and is not a
direct experience. It is not a true reality. What I sense within myself is.

Within yourself still needs a self to be within—if that makes any sense. I am aware of the limitations of language and that is what I am indeed
pointing out.

Nonetheless to experience, you need things to experience: objects, form, light, mass and the body to perceive them with. Your 'consciousness' needs
all of these things to perceive percepts and to fathom anything. Consciousness on it's own, which is impossible, and loses all ability to be called
something conscious outside the context of a living body, does not perceive anything or live or even exist as a solid concept in the minds of men.

I cannot prove consciousness doesn't exist. It is unfalsifiable, meaning there's nothing I can do to prove it doesn't exist. But I think I've proven
it doesn't exist as ONE thing. I think I've also shown that consciousness cannot exist outside the context of the body, merely by tearing the word
apart and showing how meaningless it is. That's not to say that SOMETHING (ie. the spirit, the soul etc.) cannot exist outside the body, but whatever
it is, it isn't consciousness.

Originally posted by squiz
I just posted a reply in another thread based on Gödels theory of incompleteness that I'll strip down and present here because it is very
relevant.

The gist of Gödels theory.

All closed systems depend on something outside the system. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a car but the car cannot explain itself. it's existance relies on a factory outside of the circle.

What if we draw a circle around the entire physical universe? The universe cannot explan itself. It's existance relies on something outside the
circle; outside matter, outside energy, outside time. Applying Gödels theorem we know that what is outside the circle is not matter, energy or time.
It is immaterial.

Prescriptive information symbolised by codes is also immaterial, since all codes stem from consciousness, outside the circle of material things like
letters, numbers etc... Must be... according to Gödels theory, consiousness.

Draw a circle around the biomechanical parts of the human organism, it's physicality cannot explain why it should think, feel, self reflect etc..
This is the HARD problem of nueroscience for a very good reason. These things exist outside the circle of the material parts.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.

Staring into the infinite did drive him to madness in the end, perhaps it was too much for his logical mind to fully accept.

Did Gödel say it was consciousness? Or was some new age fellow trying to shoe-horn the theory to align with his metaphysics? Why does consciousness
have to be the answer, when consciousness is only available in areas where there is life, which is so far found only on earth. How can we jump to that
conclusion knowing this?

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Did Gödel say it was consciousness?

Not exactly he was a theist. His theory can be applied to anything.

Or was some new age fellow trying to shoe-horn the theory to align with his metaphysics?

No.

Why does consciousness have to be the answer, when consciousness is only available in areas where there is life, which is so far found only on earth.
How can we jump to that conclusion knowing this?

The logic of his theory requires it. As others have suggested consciousness precedes matter, Consciousness being only available in life or rather
arising from the complexity of life is an assumption. Godels theory suggests consciousness to be outside the system of material effects.

Beyond matter is what science calls the quantum foam, pure infinite possibility in abstract form. Just as Godels theory requires. Until the wave
collapse occurs nothing is absolute. At the foundation of matter is potential and possibility this is non material or virtual.

I feel that you're just merely playing with words in this thread. You are currently conscious and thus we create a state of existence, via a word,
to describe the physicality of the matter. So we are conscious, but the essence of being conscious cannot become something tangible? We are humans,
so we create words to describe instances of our experiences.

I'm pretty sure ain't is a word now, and one could argue that it doesn't exist, but we use past knowledge to formulate this word to describe what
we are trying to say. Consciousness, or the state of being conscious, is our understanding that beings are conscious... so I'm pretty sure that
exists to us.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.